* Posts by Davey

4 posts • joined 3 Mar 2009

Greenpeace releases 'Cool IT' rankings



Judge: "Do you deny interfering with the farm animal in question?"

Defendant: "No your honour, I wouldn't want to trivialise the holocaust"

If anything though, they should be called physics deniers, because that's essentially what they are.

"I've heard a lot of hippie scientists making claims about the behaviour of methane molecules, but until I've seen one myself, I'm staying out of it"


o rly?

Globalization in this context refers to the perceived failings of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation...but then, you already knew that ;)


Lobbying Organisation in Wooly Press Release Shocker

"Organisation release non-scientific press-release" is not news, sorry. I assume you apply this rigorous scrutiny to all organisations, not just Greenpeace.

I don't follow Greenpeace, because I prefer the sober application of the scientific method to sensationalised exaggeration, which they are frequently guilty of. Funny enough, my respect for reason also means I can't take anything the Reg publishes about the environment seriously either. You lads really love your fringe science in that context, and it's become a standing joke.

So Greenpeace take real studies and present "worst-case scenario" as reality, because they want to alarm and conscript everyone in the mission to bring about their version of saving the world. Ok.

The Reg unquestionably reproduce the claims of Professor McNutjob when he/she is flying in the face of reason, be it out of genuine convictions or private funding, because, why? Page-views? Wouldn't get the right audience, techies like proper science. Trolling for links from elsewhere maybe? That said, it seems to me that after creationists, people who don't want to believe that humans could be making their environment less habitable for themselves are the ones who most ardently seek support for their standpoint, no matter how spurious that support may be. So maybe it's google gold.

As for the bootnote about Greenpeace = hippies, it's a bit confusing. If we're not taking Greenpeace seriously when they say anything, why do we take it seriously (to the point of eschewing any perception of irony) when their leader says they're all hippies? It all smacks of confirmation bias.

Bill Gates bans progeny from iPhone Nation


Aren't they too young?

His kids are roughly 12, 9 and 6.

I wouldn't give kids that age a phone or an mp3 player, of any description.

Why aren't their ages mentioned? Because then this wouldn't be a story, would it?


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019